I read Dan's editorial and fumed in anger. This was anger at his target, Jack Kroll. Little did I know how mad I was going to get once I saw the actual article that Dan gave us the link to. Mr. Kroll didn't even need to get into his article for me to determine how lacking his understanding was of video games, particularly RPGs.

At the top lies that famous pic of Aeris' back and the Highwind. And here's the caption: "The world of PlayStation's 'Final Fantasy' is unusually realistic, but it's still a game and not art." Unusually realistic?! For Final Fantasy?! I have news for you, Kroll, but it's better that I just state it like this: fantasy: Literature an imaginative or fanciful work, esp. one dealing with supernatural or unnatural events or characters. As if Materia is available in every 7-11, or people summon Meteor as leverage in a court case.

Of course, Kroll might mean that FFVII is "unusually realistic" in the sense of a big plot with dialogue and a story. And it's still "a game and not art"?!?! Please. Another example of why the article is blatantly unresearched.

Mind you, this was all from a caption on a picture. The rest of the article simply seals it. However, I'd like to point out one more thing he says that possibly ties into another type of prejudice. "Moviemakers don't have to simulate human beings; they are right there, to be recorded and orchestrated." Um, right. So, what category does ANIMATED stuff fall under? Either this guy admits that it's not necessary for a person to be literally recorded for emotional impact or he reveals a prejudice against animation in all its forms. Choose, Kroll.

Guys like this should be, to quote Garfield the cat, "dragged into the street and shot." Or even better, he should be horribly, terribly, insanely cruelly......ignored. Cold shoulders will make bugs like him buzz off.

In conclusion, one more quote - this one by Dennis Miller - "Remember, art is in the eye of the head up the ass of the beholder."